Is rational discussion even possible when people can't even agree upon dry facts such as is someone laying pipes or not?
Also this afternoon I had a brief spat with one of our more vocal lefty activists. The fellow was bandying around the appellate "neocon", so I sent him a short message:
Use of the moniker neocon is proof of sloppy rhetoric and intellectual laziness. It's also often a euphemism for Jew-hatred.You'd think an intelligent and educated person might pause for a moment, or at least explain that while he's aware of the various precedents of tarring ideological adversaries with shorthand designation that don't actually mean anything, his use actually is serious and meaningful. Alas, no, and this is what our discussion looked like:
(He): In this case it is not a moniker, but a description of an ideologyI'm not sure I understand how being introduced to Google is supposed to offer me an answer to my comments, but that's the point: If this fellow and I can't even agree on the legitimate usage of a loaded term, why expect that a roomful of Jews and Arabs discussing water projects in Jerusalem will agree on what's happening? And if that can't happen, how does anyone expect Jerusalem can be amicably divided in a way that will ensure peace comity and brotherhood?
(Me): Think so? What's neo, and what's con about it, for starters?
(He): Allow me to introduce you to Google. Now leave me alone. Ludicrous.